Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
congress doesnt have the power to amend the constitution,,,
at this point you should just give it up,,,
Is the widdle baby angry at the great big judges?Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.
you do realize you just proved me right dont you???congress doesnt have the power to amend the constitution,,,
at this point you should just give it up,,,
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution...
...Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
If you're saying I didn't say they were downright stupid and criminal you'd be correct. They were doing something they felt was necessary to the greater good of their people. That can be worth a certain amount of sacrifice whether I agree with it or not.Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked. And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
Yet you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.The First Amendment, as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits states as well as the federal government from violating the people's freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly.
Is the widdle baby angry at the great big judges?Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
Maybe the widdle angry baby can show the decades of case law on covid restrictions and freedom of religion?
I'll bet the widdle baby cannot.
There you miss the point....from their point of view it is the same..you may not share their faith in God...but it's real to them..as real as their ideologies are to BLM. That you cannot see this and respect it is a mystery to me.If you're saying I didn't say they were downright stupid and criminal you'd be correct. They were doing something they felt was necessary to the greater good of their people. That can be worth a certain amount of sacrifice whether I agree with it or not.Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked. And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
These fools bitching about missing a church service are not in the same category.
LOL.Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments. They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
There you miss the point....from their point of view it is the same..you may not share their faith in God...but it's real to them..as real as their ideologies are to BLM. That you cannot see this and respect it is a mystery to me.If you're saying I didn't say they were downright stupid and criminal you'd be correct. They were doing something they felt was necessary to the greater good of their people. That can be worth a certain amount of sacrifice whether I agree with it or not.Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked. And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
These fools bitching about missing a church service are not in the same category.
Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule. That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver. That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.
Yet you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.
You can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government
And you can't disclose classified information.
How come they can control speech?
Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule. That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver. That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.
Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule. That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver. That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.
There you miss the point....from their point of view it is the same..you may not share their faith in God...but it's real to them..as real as their ideologies are to BLM. That you cannot see this and respect it is a mystery to me.
Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule. That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver. That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.
Indeed. If you buy a double cheeseburger, you can't get a double heart bypass. Yup. That slope is covered in ice. But wouldn't it be good if people took total responsibility for their actions?Pretty slippery slope there son. Where does that stop?
I'd call him an a-hole but at least they have a useful purpose.He is perpetually angry at anything that does not go as he thinks it should. He hates ALL things Christian and Conservative. He'd lock us up if he could.
OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.
OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it. Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.
I’m still not sure why conservatives have such a hard time understanding infectious disease transmission. Exposing yourself unnecessarily to COVID-19 and then gathering in fellowship without the proper safeguards doesn’t sound terribly Christian to me.
It isn’t, of course. But then when have these folks ever really been “pro-life”?
